🔗 Share this article

Let's start with the core issue: The Microsoft founder ignores the role of politics. Though he came to it late, he now acknowledges climate change facts. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about the realities of power. His latest essay on climate, shared days ago, approaches climate change without political context. He writes as if there were no such thing as political power, and no such thing as billionaires.

Central Claim

His key position states that financial resources are scarce, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should shift funding from "near-term emissions goals" towards climate resilience and spending on poverty and disease.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but it's not caused by inevitable rules, some implacable truth about human society. The reason is elite influence has declared war on benign state spending, leading to the destruction of USAID and substantial decreases in support money of additional nations. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The decision to impose it is driven by governments bowing to the wishes of the ultra-rich.

Existing Wealth

Substantial financial resources are present. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, research showed that the total wealth of the 10 richest US billionaires grew by $698bn in the past year. This amount by itself, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is almost 10 times the money needed each year to stop deep deprivation worldwide. What methods enabled such concentration of economic resources into private hands? Why can't society reclaim it through proper tax policies? The solution lies in their conversion of financial influence into governmental control. With growing fortunes, the greater their ability to influence political and economic frameworks to their desires, securing ongoing financial growth. But Bill Gates says nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both climate action and poverty relief could be identified.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' The billionaire alongside Trump at an exclusive meal for corporate executives in the capital.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

A clear connection exists between the poverty Gates claims to care so much about and the riches he overlooks. In the US, homelessness is breaking records, and so is the percentage of resources held by the ultra-rich. Even if this doesn't characterize Gates' specific methods, by keeping pay low, racking up rents, busting trade unions and securing tax reductions and budget decreases, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Investigation Conclusions

A notable research in academic political journals, one of the rare examinations of this private sphere, found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from the general population. The multimillionaires it interviewed, sharply different from average people, saw budget deficits as the most important of the issues it listed, and environmental collapse as unimportant. They were far more likely to insist that social welfare programs and national health services should be decreased, and far less likely to believe that jobless individuals deserve adequate living conditions, or that there should be stricter rules for petroleum corporations, banking entities and medical coverage companies. They were fiercely opposed to redistribution.

Political Influence

Which perspectives dominate? The tiny minority or the great majority? Though the study was conducted in the Obama years, it found that billionaires maintained closer relationships with government figures than ordinary people. And now? The situation hardly requires explanation.

Omissions and Assumptions

Here's another crucial exclusion from the billionaire's article: throughout thousands of words, Trump goes unmentioned. If Gates included this, he'd have to recognize that an important foundation of his argument is unstable: decreasing expenses for eco-friendly innovations automatically creates ecological advancement. Naturally, it's beneficial that renewable energy costs are dropping significantly than conventional power. But Trump and similar demagogues are employing every method to hinder the change.

Partly as a result, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This could be why, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its oil and gas financial assets have, actually grown.

Psychological Factors

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, he could genuinely find it impossible to consider. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": a profound incapacity to see the world from other people's point of view. Even though billionaires present research challenges, drawing conclusions from studies about wealth's impact on thinking could suggest that gaining massive wealth resembles experiencing brain trauma. Fortunes seem to disturb particular brain operations, particularly those related to empathy and perspective.

Strategic Considerations

Yet, political maneuvering could be present: his article seems designed as appeasement toward Trump. Trump certainly took it that way: "I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. Gates has confessed his total mistake. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Previous Positions

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on climate matters, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, repeating traditional energy arguments (green technologies could reduce global CO2 emissions only at a "beyond astronomical" cost) well after their refutation. He has disseminated uncertainty and false information, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing that the purpose of Sri Lanka's disastrous ban on artificial fertilizers aimed at pollution decrease.

More Challenging Facts

The billionaire titles his piece Three Difficult Climate Realities. So here's another tough truth he studiously ignores. Should, as appears probable, vital planetary systems reach critical thresholds and quickly deteriorate, the consequences for people, let alone the survival of other life forms (a subject he consistently omits), would destroy the smooth and steady progress he foresees. Given that climate alteration may not happen incrementally and steadily, but through sudden changes of state, the possible impacts on human wellbeing are extremely hard to predict. His claim that financial support should match current analytical approaches to quality of life, while it might sound rational, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest